Good for a few more years?

At 36-years-old, Glenn McGrath has stunned England with a display of precision pace bowling to bag six wickets. At the other end, Stuart Clark, oddly criticised as being too much like McGrath took a handy 3-20. How long can McGrath keep going? And has Clark proved line and length beat pace and unpredictability?

As for England, just how poor was their effort in scoring a paltry 157 in reply to Australia's 9-602 declared?

And what do you make of Australia's decision not to enforce the follow-on?

Posted
by SMH OnlineNovember 25, 2006 3:29 PM

LATEST COMMENTS

*yawn* ......what a boring game. Too one sided. Let's hope the next few games provide some better entertainment........and I'm an ozi!!

What the hell is punter doing batting again??????? it seems insane when they could have even wrapped up the game today!!! .........all he has done is given the poms a better chance of playing for a draw, hasn't he??.........

Posted by: wally raffles on November 25, 2006 6:17 PM

On McGrath:Well done old man!

On Clark:How is being a replica of McGrath a disadvantage to selection?

On the English 157:The way they were treated as rock stars (Trafalgar Square packed for the reception, etc) after winning the Ashes last year has set them up for a BIG fall. They believed their own English press too much.

On the decision not to enforce the follow on:A very clever and shrewd tactical move that goes beyond this test. It means not only will England be driven into the ground psychologically by the magnitude of their defeat this time around, but they will also have been out in the field for an extra half a day (performing very badly this afternoon, I must say), and will have less time to lick their wounds, recover and get some much needed practice in before the next test in Adelaide.

Ponting is thinking not only of using the advantage to win this test, but also the next.

On Dad's Army:I notice that Botham has now gone from criticising the age of the Australian team to criticising the under-prepared English team in the paper today. How fickle are the English and the English press?

Posted by: Silly Point on November 25, 2006 7:18 PM

McGrath can keep going for another 3-4 years. His action is so economical that his body is not being worn out.I am hopeful however that when he does retire that he will go into the media. He's such a funny guy and what a wealth of knowledge and body of work to present! The main benefactors of Australia's decision not to enforce the follow on would be the ACB. If England had followed on it could have been over today!

Posted by: Dannill on November 25, 2006 8:58 PM

McGrath was fantastic and answered all his critics with a fantastic display of seam bowling, but what I found most encouraging was Clarks effort. He looks the goods to me.
Ponting will never enforce the follow on if he didn't today. Crazy stuff.

Posted by: Matt McLellan on November 25, 2006 10:15 PM

Now all the knockers can have a little rest. McGrath was spectacular and Ponting showed why he is the best in the world. His Captaincy has been of the highest class and batting has been above anyone else.

The Aussies have shown why they are the most professional team in the world. Go Boys

Posted by: Tony G on November 25, 2006 10:31 PM

Well UNREAL!!
G McGrath.. what a champion?
Its not the pitch.. just very good bowling and well supported by Clark.(who also bowled superbly)
Good decision not to follow on.
This game is as good as over and it will be very interesting to see who the selectors pick for Adelaide
Probably unchanged.
Go Aussies
Steve W

Posted by: steve w on November 25, 2006 10:53 PM

McGrath proved that you don't have to bowl quick to be successful. Deadly accuracy, consistency and cunning are far more valuable. The only bowlers I've seen that combined these qualities with genuine pace was J.Garner,D.K.Lillee & M.Marshall.

McGrath stated on TV today that he would like 1000 (600 test, 400 ODI) international wickets. When he achieves this he will retire. I'd suggest he would have to endure a very long & bad run of form to be dropped by the current conservative selection panel. Plus Ponting loves him (what captain wouldn't) and another season or two educating Clark, Johnson etc. will be invaluable to the next generation of quicks.

157 is a poor score on a flat, dry wicket. However McGrath & Clark bowled superbly. Hardly a bad ball. They hit the crack in the pitch outside off stump so often that the English batsmen were mesmerised. Not one (Bell included) looked comfortable. Perhaps they'll improve in the second dig.

To follow-on or not? That has everbeen the question for captains. In this instance I think it hardly matters. Australia already had enough runs to win after the first innings. Seven and half sessions remained. No rain forecast. Five and a half sessions should be enough time to roll England. I'm pretty sure Warne would like a bag and McGrath will want 10 for. That said as all Tonkers know cricket is a funny funny game. It can turn quickly. England has the ability to bat for 6 sessions. For Punter's sake let's hope they don't.

Posted by: quin on November 26, 2006 1:45 AM

I see Maguire is up to his usual dirty tricks - the Channel 9 coverage has a 9 second delay which he hopes will stop those cricket lovers wanting to listen to the ABC coverage rather than the Channel 9 chatter whilst watching the match. I for one would rather turn the tv off and rely on the radio coverage than put up with this - what do you all think?

Posted by: AntiNine on November 26, 2006 4:53 PM

Sorry to say all you Brett Lee Lovers, but he is bowling puss. He looks no better than a grade cricketer and has seemed to do nothing against England at all. He will have to keep getting better with the bat because his only chance to stay in the team is as an all rounder. Its a pitty but thats the way it falls.

4 - 260 odd, the poms are putting up a fight. Warney the old toiler, he's still got it.

Posted by: Tony G on November 26, 2006 5:52 PM

Glad to see some good cricket today! ...........but it would have become more interesting if flintoff was still in .......what a silly shot!
I watched the game in my favourite bangkok british pub where the poms were enjoing the game for the first time!! ......now to bowl them out in the first session tomorrow hehe..

Posted by: wally raffles on November 26, 2006 7:57 PM

AntiNine, If you are using digital TV that explains everything. Digital has a delay period which makes it very frustrating listening to the radio. Only noticed it on state of origin with Roy & HG but can't be helped.

Posted by: adam on November 26, 2006 10:41 PM

While Glenn was great, speaking from experience when you get older the old bod starts misbehaving.
If anything happens to him we'd better watch out for the Poms!
We beat them heavily in the first test in Britain and they regrouped and we spent the rest of the series on the back foot.
They have some good players and the series may end up being a tough one.

Posted by: Jen on November 26, 2006 11:23 PM

To antinine at 4:53 25 Nov - hey I stopped listening to the banal drivel from nine commentators 20 years ago. It's like industrial deafness - you just tune out.

Also I read the SMH article about the decision not to follow on. I support Punter. Look at the weather forecast - no rain in sight. Deteriorating pitch perfect for Warney and the cracks working for the quickies. Also we have to respect the English somewhat - after all they do hold the ashes -and some of these coves can bat even in the face of our superior bowling attack.

1-0 is a good start

Posted by: one more year on November 27, 2006 7:52 AM

one more year: there are showers predicted this arvo. It's highly unlikely but if Pietersen and Jones batted to lunch (or close), then one of them stayed in while Giles and Hoggard dug in defensively, maybe rain saves England? Ponting's conservatism would be to blame.

Very concerning that McGrath seems restricted. Seems to invite Watson as the fifth-bowler back into the frame for Adelaide. For England, you'd have to think Anderson is gone (for Mahmood) and maybe Giles (for Panesar). And Harmison will need to get his act together quickly.

The highlight of yesterday for me was when Warne threw the ball at Pitersen - an intimidatory tactic he's been getting away with for 12 years - and finally Pietersen does what somebody should have years ago and smashes it. The only disappointment is that he got it late and the Aussies didn't have to fetch from the stands.

Posted by: Rob on November 27, 2006 9:28 AM

On the follow-on:

Statistician Charles Davis has shown that teams enforcing the follow-on do worse than those which don't. On this page:

he notes that, from 1975 to 2005, teams enforcing the follow-on have won 81% of the time and lost twice. Teams batting again have won 93% of the time and never lost.

You should only enforce the follow-on if time is short, especially with when there is another Test coming soon afterwards.

Posted by: David Barry on November 27, 2006 9:48 AM

According to the forecast, as well as locals calling the Big Sports Breakfast this morning, rain could arrive at Brisbane by around lunch time. Ponting's decision not to enforce the follow in further highlighted his deficiencies as a captain. Maybe he had in mind the whole "completely break their spirit" idea, but honestly, England were never a remote chance of avoiding defeat if he enforced it, now, they are still unlikely to draw the game, but are a lot better chance than if they'd batted again. Why didn't he go for the jugular? There is no VVS Laxman or Rahul Dravid in this English side, they had absolutely nothing to fear forcing them back in. I simply do not understand.

Posted by: Sam on November 27, 2006 9:49 AM

David Barry, I think you need more information before you can conclusively say whether enforcing or not-enforcing the follow-on is best. My feeling is it's a judgement call depending on individual cirsumstances, and my judgment call based on these circumstances would have been put them in again. The Test most likely would have been over by 3pm yesterday arvo.

Posted by: Rob on November 27, 2006 10:25 AM

Sam:

My jaapie boy KPP is better than both the above hacks. And he is actually worth watching too.

I think the decision not to enforce the follow on was so that we could see more of the number 3, so the caterers could sell more of their wares, so the advertisers and sponsors, (who pay big bucks to the ACB) could reap the full benefit if an extra days play. In other words, the decision was purely a commercial one to appease the people who pay the cricketer's wages.
What concerns me more though, are these cricketers who feel a need to wear an earring to show the world their preferred sexuality.
I can understand having one to show that you're into homosexuality, easy pick ups for example, but why wear one to show the world that you're NOT gay ? Obviously they have thought about it, and are troubled that somebody might think they ARE.
"Oooh, if I wear this earring in my left ear, nobody will think I'm a poof, and the earring will prove that I'm not"

Posted by: Bill on November 27, 2006 11:16 AM

KP is a great player. Haven't seen him win a game from 350 behind and following on though. Haven't seen him hit 167 out of 250 either. And he got out already so there's no point entertaining the thought of him helping them escape from this one.

Posted by: Sam on November 27, 2006 11:46 AM

i think the salient difference for me was the deficit - wasn't it 445 or something? Poms would have had to score 600+ to set a modest target.

Headingley 1981 we led by 227 and Kolkotta was 274.

maybe lead over 300 bowl again, under 300 bat again.

that australian second innings was some of the lowest intensity test cricket i've ever seen - if McGuire thought that was good for ratings he truly is a collingwood fan mentally.

Posted by: Peter Warrington on November 27, 2006 1:13 PM

Lee's bowling was rather in-effective. He seems to forget basic virtues of line and length. McGrath - what a champion. Seems to be carrying a bit of an injury.

Clark and Langer justified their selection. Michael Clarke I still am not convinced.